Reference of the South Carolina Nullification and the Texas Revolution: The sympathy which exists in behalf of Texas at the south, looks to other objects than the mere defence of that country. Texas is desired as an appendage to the strength of the south. They wish it annexed to the union, that the balance of power may still be found on the feeble side of • Mason and Dixon's line: Once let the cry for succor be rung through the land and the annexation of Texas they imagine will be as easy as it is desirable. So reasons the south. Let the north reason otherwise. The Texians are not deserving of aid or sympathy The invasion of that country by Santa Anna, is not unprovoked but It is in a great measure justified, in retaliation for the Santa Fe expedition, which had for its avowed purpose the subjugation and pillage of Mexico. The Texians have provoked the assault, and now they must abide the consequences, unless a fool-hardy and absurd idea prevails, that we must succor these men, because Texas affords a refuge for outlaws and desperadoes for the whole continent of North America! Texas at all hazards, union or no union, must be had to be kept out! The Texas lot was the most bare faced high handed outraged ever recorded on the page of history, to which there is no legal or moral justification, and has no resemblance to anything we know of, save South Carolina nullification! -Phila. Gazette NewsPress Anti Texas Legion Protest
Emancipation proclamation started the dangerous president of illegal government overreach in the free market. which led to communism. In an effort to free the criminals, led to the enslavement of Law abiding citizens. Communism is an evil, and this is how it started.
The wealthy planter class in the South were so fabulously rich they could eat damn near any tariff thrown at them, so it did not hurt them. The FACT all too often sadly lost here is that the tariff hurt the burgeoning MIDDLE CLASS farmers and merchants. Also when South Carolina DID secede from the Union in December 1860, it was again over an excessive tariff, in this case the Morrill Tariff. The so-called Nullification Crisis, and secession years later, WAS NOT driven by the rich planter class but by the middle class who were most hurt by these tariffs.
There's nothing controversial about the second amendment period it's our duty as american citizens to Be ready well, primed prepared citizens. For a government who pushes. Tyranny the anti federalist were absolutely clear thousands of years of history to go from we are there now
I've had my 5th and 6th violated , never got to confront my witness till 7 months later as I was picking my jury lol and I still won beat 2 counts of burglary 1st (25-life each) 2 counts of robbery 1s (subdivision 1 and 2 ) robbery first 1st subdivision 1 holds 25 to life also then 2 was like 15 to 25 and then attempted murder 1st degree 10 to 25. At first hearing I ask for my 6th and 5th and to be released because the crime I was accused of has no possible physical evidence or eye witnesses because the crime that took place happened over 2 years ago 😅 so impossible. I had to wait 6months and 3 weeks to start trial, trial took 4 days my mom brother and sister all told on me (hearsay statements and none of them were the same story😂😂 still indicted😂😂😂 3 hearsay statements, and 2 were double hearsay 😂😂😂
These were Conceived & written about by Men who risked Their Wealth,Land & Property... They risked their Freedom & Lives: "To Create a More Better Union" Whereas "Every Man is Created Equally & Has these Inalienable-Rights as a Citizen of these United States, To be Free with Life Liberty & in the Pursuit of Happiness"..... The Democrat Party In Government now DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY OF THIS.
I have an honest question…. If the 2nd amendment gives us the right to bare arms then should the states not be allowed to make their own determinations of gun rights and laws? I mean the 10th gives all the power not expressly stated by the constitution to the state and the people…. But the constitution already states the right to bare arms. So I don’t believe that gives any state the right to modify that right in any way…. Am i misunderstanding?
No, they shouldn't. The only reason why most of these unconstitutional laws don't get challenged is because the Supreme Court usually refuses to take up cases they know they'll get significant backlash over from at least a sizable portion of the public. They really shouldn't, but they do.
I could be wrong but it doesn't seem like shorter Winters it seems more like a season change because when I was a kid back in the 80s we had a lot of snow in December and it got colder sooner but then in March it would be warming up already but these days it gets colder later and it stays colder clear until April. Like I said I could be wrong but it's just what I've noticed throughout the years
Friendly reminder the first drafts of impeachment had nothing to do with Watergate but with the secret bombing of Cambodia, which I guess is pretty damaging to USA credibility since it got buried in the history books.
Personally, in my opinion, if the new 28th amendment were to come out, it should probably be to revoke the 11th amendment. In my opinion, if there is a legitimate reason to sue a state, then the federal government, led by the representation of every citizen, should be forced to hear the case.
Yes, Stevens was the vice president this is likely how reconstruction would’ve went. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments would’ve been forced on the south, the south would’ve been made into military jurisdictions, and had their statehood repealed. The property rights laws of the 14th amendment and of other constitutional laws would’ve had a limited scope as it pertains to white landowners, and the 15th amendment would not apply to white land owners in the south. Military expansion within happened in the south and economic reinforcement for the occurred. President Stevens might’ve also focused on stripping statehood from the south and creating minority control states. Yes, Stevens would’ve been the better decision for Lincoln as a vice president overall from the way we see you today based on the superior morality of today, but it might’ve caused more divisions within some moderates at the time and might have cost Abraham Lincoln in the election.
It seems like Facebook and Google/RU-vid are unofficial branches of the government. "THEY" are trying to get you to believe that you have free speech; you/WE don't
27th amendment= The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States and all its territories. Nothing in this constitution shall be ignored or construed to violate the rights of the people and the authority of the states, Congress, the President or any other governing body or private industry by the Supreme court or any lower court. No prior court ruling shall take more weight than the words of this Constitution. The right to appeal any criminal court ruling shall not be denied due to a lack of financial or educational resources. All appeals shall be judged solely on the merit of the evidence presented. No federal or state law, rule or regulation shall be construed to limit or deny the rights of any person as described by this Constitution. Any citizen who's rights are infringed by any government agency in their jurisdiction shall have standing before a court of law to have their complaint heard and addressed. 28th amendment= Any increase in the compensation for Senators, Representatives, the Supreme court, and the President of the United States shall be solely by an annual adjustment not to exceed the rate of inflation as determined by the economic body entrusted with that responsibility. They shall receive no other compensation, gilts or emoluments, capital gains, dividends or promises of financial gain, or special rates of interest from any source public or private while they are in service to the United States. Congress shall hold any member in violation of this amendment to be subject to impeachment without discrimination, and afterward remanded for state prosecution for bribery i accordance with the laws of the state in which that member resides.
